In one photograph, the couple are exchanging a kiss on the Brooklyn Waterfront, the Manhattan skyline and Brooklyn Bridge resplendent in the background.

In another, the couple, West Orange’s Brian Edwards and Tom Privitere, are sharing the same kiss, but the backdrop is snow-covered evergreens. Across that second image, the question “State Senator Jean White’s Idea of ‘Family Values?’” is superimposed on a red background.

The couple had fully consented with the making of the first photo: it was their engagement picture, taken in May 2010 by Brooklyn wedding photographer and friend Kristina Hill.

Until contacted by a friend, they had no clue about the second, which was affixed to an anti-gay political mailer used to attack a Colorado state Senate candidate supportive of same-sex civil unions.

It and a similarly doctored image opposing another candidate on the same grounds were sent to about 7,400 voters.

The photo was lifted from Edwards’ wedding blog by Public Advocate of the United States, a Virginia organization opposed to gay marriage.

Edwards, Privitere and Hill sued Public Advocate and others, alleging unlawful appropriation of Edwards’ and Privitere’s name and likeness and copyright infringement.

On Monday, a U.S. District judge in Colorado rendered a split decision, agreeing use of the photo — and a similarly doctored third image sent to about 4,700 Colorado voters — was noncommercial and a matter of legitimate public concern and, as such, protected by the First Amendment.

Wiley, though, denied Public Advocate’s motion to dismiss the copyright infringement claim based on a contention that appropriation of the image was consistent with the fair use doctrine.

This photo, taken by Brooklyn photographer Kristina Hill, of Brian Edwards, left, and Tom Privitere as part of a photographic portfolio of their engagement was manipulated and used in a political ad. Kristina Hill Photography

“The mailers are simply statements of disapproval of certain public candidates,” Judge Wiley Daniel wrote in an 18-page order. “While Public Advocate may profit in some tangential way ... such collateral effect is insufficient to conclude that the mailers were used for a primarily commercial purpose.”

Public Advocate’s president, Eugene Delgaudio, called the judge’s dismissal of the first claim “a tremendous victory” for the organization’s mission.

“We continue to believe we have the right to defend traditional marriage and will redouble our efforts to oppose homosexual marriage,” he said in a statement.

The plaintiffs’ attorney, Anjali Nair, a Southern Poverty Law Center staff attorney, was dismayed with Daniel’s findings on the misappropriation claim but looked forward to taking the copyright allegation to trial.

“We are happy the court has ruled that the defendants’ unauthorized use of the engagement photo may violate the copyright laws and that the copyright claim may proceed to trial,” Nair said in a statement. “We are disappointed with the court’s legal ruling on the misappropriation claim and remain convinced that the misuse of our clients’ private engagement photo was wrong.”